China May Release Jailed Times Researcher, Lawyer Says

By JIM YARDLEY; Joel Brinkley contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

Published: March 18, 2006

Chinese authorities on Friday withdrew at least part of the case against a Chinese researcher for The New York Times, in a surprise legal maneuver that left unclear whether he would soon be released as President Hu Jintao prepares to visit the United States next month.

Zhao Yan, 44, a researcher in the Beijing office of The Times, has been imprisoned for 18 months on a charge that he disclosed state secrets to the newspaper, as well as a lesser charge of fraud. Mr. Zhao has denied both charges.

His lawyer, Mo Shaoping, said court officials told him on Friday that the decision meant that both charges against Mr. Zhao were being withdrawn. He said his client could possibly be released within days. But a court order on the matter, issued Friday, made no mention of a release date for Mr. Zhao and gave no definitive statement about his status.

Officials with China's Foreign Ministry, who had failed to respond to earlier calls, said late in the evening that ''further information'' was needed about the ''new developments.'' The ministry declined to say whether Mr. Zhao would be released.

In Washington, the State Department could not confirm that one or both charges against Mr. Zhao had been dropped, said a spokesman, Tom Casey. He said the embassy in Beijing would continue to press for Mr. Zhao's release, ''because the charges against him lack merit.''

The uncertainty about Mr. Zhao's fate lies in the unusual legal maneuver invoked by prosecutors. Mr. Zhao was supposed to go on trial no later than Monday, his lawyer said. But prosecutors used a procedural clause to ask the court to withdraw the lesser fraud charge, citing a need for more investigation.

Mr. Mo said prosecutors sometimes use this language to request a delay of the trial date. But, in this instance, Mr. Mo said, prosecutors instead asked to withdraw the case. He said Chinese law held that prosecutors could not indict Mr. Zhao again on the same charges, unless they found new evidence.

''They are clearly looking for a reason to end the case,'' Mr. Mo said.

The order issued by the Beijing Second Intermediate Court is written in vague language. It defines ''the case'' as consisting of both charges. It then says the court agrees with the motion by prosecutors to withdraw the case. But, as explanation for the withdrawal, the order said prosecutors wanted more investigation into the lesser fraud charge. It does not refer to any new disposition of the state secrets charge, which carries a prison sentence of at least 10 years.

Mr. Zhao's case has brought heavy criticism against China from human rights groups, the United States government and other nations. President Bush has twice personally raised Mr. Zhao's case with Mr. Hu, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also criticized the arrest.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said he hoped that the new developments meant that Mr. Zhao would be released. ''The notion that Zhao Yan's work for The Times constituted anything but dogged journalism was wrong from the outset,'' he said. ''If this represents a legal system working the way it is supposed to, that is happy news far beyond the family of The New York Times.''

The case against Mr. Zhao was politically delicate because it involved the highest levels of the Chinese leadership, which made the decision to drop any charges all the more remarkable. His arrest was tied to a Sept. 7, 2004, article in The Times, which disclosed that the former president, Jiang Zemin, had unexpectedly offered to give up his final leadership position as head of the military. The article later proved accurate when Mr. Jiang resigned.

The Chinese news media are forbidden to report on the inner workings of the top leadership of the Communist Party. The Times article prompted a high-level investigation to find the sources of the leak, according to a person familiar with the investigation. State security agents apparently quickly focused on Mr. Zhao, who had been an investigative journalist for Chinese publications before joining The Times's Beijing bureau in April 2004.

Mr. Zhao was arrested on Sept. 17, 10 days after the publication of the Times article. The key piece of evidence, later revealed in a confidential state security report, was a photocopy of a handwritten note that Mr. Zhao had written to The Times's Beijing bureau chief, Joseph Kahn, the writer of the Sept. 7 article.

The note, written two months before the publication of the article, was unrelated to Mr. Jiang's resignation plans. Instead, it described maneuvering taking place between Mr. Hu and Mr. Jiang over military appointments. Mr. Kahn later referred to the political jockeying at the end of the Sept. 7 article.

It is still uncertain how state security agents obtained the photocopy. Agents either entered the office without permission or enlisted someone to help them make a copy. Under Chinese law, the note should not have been admissible in court.

Investigators added the fraud charge a few months after Mr. Zhao was arrested. It is unrelated to the state secrets charge and involves allegations involving improper payments that date from Mr. Zhao's work at a Chinese publication, before he joined The Times. Mr. Zhao and a witness disputed the accusation.

John Kamm, a human rights campaigner who negotiates the release of political prisoners in China, urged caution about the new developments in Mr. Zhao's case, but said he was ''cautiously optimistic'' that the researcher would be released.

Mr. Kamm said he raised the case of Mr. Zhao and others last month in a meeting with Foreign Ministry officials. He said the officials had suggested that China would make ''human rights gestures'' in advance of Mr. Hu's trip to the United States.

Mr. Mo said the procedural clause used by prosecutors to withdraw the case could allow them to release Mr. Zhao without restraint, or to release him on something similar to bail for up to 12 months. Then prosecutors would decide whether to bring a new case with new evidence, he added.